{"schema_version":1,"experiment_id":"eoa_inverse_innovation_exp03_full320_20260801","cell_id":"layer_decay_and_expiration_management__literature_literary_theory","trajectory_id":"R","attempt_index":0,"candidate_sha256":"80a41d038929dd5d644d76b7c00cf83e0feb8f2eb74600145b0fa507759ffa4b","gates":{"G1":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The candidate identifies an independently recognizable problem in living critical editions: deposited interpretive material can remain misleadingly active while removal threatens citation continuity and editorial history."},"G2":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Annotations and apparatus records are genuine sequential deposits with changing visibility, validity, dependency, and preservation needs; the proposed lifecycle states closely correspond to the archetype."},"G3":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Inventory, review triggers, dependency checks, differentiated disposition, and recurrent revalidation plausibly reduce stale authority without sacrificing reconstructability, although effectiveness remains to be tested."},"G4":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The component map is complete and domain-specific, and the selected mechanisms retain their distinct functions rather than being renamed generically; unsuitable clock, cache, score, and rotation mechanisms are explicitly rejected."},"G5":{"status":"PASS","reason":"Empirical and interpretive claims are bounded as hypotheses or inferences, prior-art status is disclosed as unsearched, and no unsupported result or authority claim is presented as established evidence."},"G6":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The problem falsifier distinguishes absent lifecycle harm from intervention failure, while the intervention falsifier compares lifecycle treatment with the baseline using interpretation, reference, provenance, and confusion outcomes."},"G7":{"status":"PASS","reason":"The pilot is bounded and reversible, authority rests with an accountable editorial board, affected parties and prohibited actions are named, and halt and restoration conditions address citation, provenance, rights, and viewpoint-suppression risks."}},"scores":{"structural_fit":{"score":4,"reason":"The deposited-layer problem, active-versus-historical distinction, dependency risk, exception handling, reversible disposition, and bounded-stack objective align tightly with the archetype."},"domain_fidelity":{"score":4,"reason":"The proposal respects the nonmonotonic value and contestability of literary interpretation, preserves reception history and scholarly credit, and avoids treating age or disagreement as invalidity."},"causal_plausibility":{"score":3,"reason":"The causal chain is coherent and the chosen mechanisms address detection, authority, disposition, continuity, and restoration, but their behavioral benefit and editorial burden remain empirical hypotheses."},"component_translation":{"score":4,"reason":"Every archetype component receives a concrete realization in critical-edition practice, with careful adaptations for attention, visibility, scholarly value, archival access, and institutional holds."},"adversarial_survival":{"score":4,"reason":"The candidate directly confronts the strongest analogy break, rival metadata explanation, canonization risk, false staleness, citation failure, and bureaucratic burden through exclusions and falsifiers."},"reframing_gain":{"score":4,"reason":"Treating interpretive apparatus as governed lifecycle layers reveals a useful middle ground between permanent equal prominence and destructive cleanup."},"practicality_testability":{"score":4,"reason":"A bounded reversible pilot specifies the substrate, comparison condition, permitted action, measurable outcomes, stop conditions, and rollback path."},"expected_value_risk":{"score":3,"reason":"The intervention could materially improve intelligibility and maintenance with reversible early actions, but visibility governance can entrench editorial power and create continuing review costs."},"novelty_evidence":{"score":1,"reason":"The combination may be distinctive, but the disclosed unsearched prior-art status supplies little evidence that comparable editorial lifecycle systems or practices are absent."}},"weighted_total":91.25,"disposition":"DEEP_RESEARCH","fabrication_findings":[],"weak_dimensions":["novelty_evidence"],"actionable_critique":[{"priority":"MEDIUM","issue":"Novelty relative to existing digital-edition, annotation-versioning, scholarly-apparatus, and archival-governance practice is unknown.","repair":"Before claiming novelty, conduct a bounded prior-art review and identify which proposed lifecycle functions are established, uncommon, or genuinely combined in a new way.","evidence_boundary":"This closed-book evaluation supports structural quality only and cannot establish novelty or prevalence."}],"repairs":[],"improvement_attribution":{"kind":"NONE","reason":"This is the original attempt; no earlier problem, causal lever, or registered repair exists against which improvement can be attributed."},"trajectory_replacement":false,"arm_guess":"MECHANISM_PACKET","recommendation":"SUCCESS","tester_summary":"A strong, domain-faithful transfer that preserves interpretive contestability while making stale authority, dependencies, reversible disposition, and archival recovery governable. Its main unresolved question is prior-art novelty, not structural viability."}